Christianity and The Old Testament Law

The Old Testament includes hundreds of commandments from God, or from an agent of God (e.g. an angel). Typically, these commandments are found in either Leviticus or Deuteronomy (which literally means “second law”), but there are commandments scattered across other books, like Genesis, Exodus and Numbers. The commandments take on various forms and contexts. Here are some quick examples:

• Don’t eat camels, hares, or pigs (Leviticus 11)
• Don’t wear a garment made of two different kinds of fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
• Don’t murder, commit adultery, or steal (Exodus 20)
• Don’t work on the Sabbath, and kill anyone that works on the Sabbath (Exodus 31)
• A sacrifice to God must be eaten within 2 days, and anyone who eats after that will be punished (Leviticus 19)
• Every 7 years, Israelites must cancel all debts to each other (Deuteronomy 15)

In the times of the Old Testament, these commandments were considered binding and authoritative. Collectively, these commandments are called the “Old Testament Law”, or just “the law”.

Christians generally consider the Old Testament to have some sort of authority. But here’s the problem: it’s not immediately obvious, even in the New Testament, which laws Christians should still consider binding. Jesus and some other New Testament authors make comments about the Law (or some specific commandments) in ways that imply that some authority remains. But, watch most modern Christians, and you’ll see plenty eating bacon, or wearing two different kinds of fabric at once. So, where should we draw the line?

Absence of Qualifiers

Generally, the Old Testament Laws are not time-bound. God does not prepend each law with qualifiers like “and ye shall follow this law for exactly 200 years:” or “this law only applies until Jesus comes”. However, we certainly find instructions to keep certain laws “forever”. For example:

• In Genesis 17, God tells Abraham “I am imposing on you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. This is my requirement that you and your descendants after you must keep: Every male among you must be circumcised.”
• In Exodus 31:12-17, God tells Moses that “you must keep the Sabbath… anyone who does work on the Sabbath day must surely be put to death. The Israelites must keep the Sabbath by observing the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the Israelites forever…”
• In Exodus 12, God institutes the holiday of Passover, explaining that “you will celebrate it perpetually as a lasting ordinance.”

Many laws apply to the Israelites, specifically. It’s unclear whether modern Christians count as Israelites for the purposes of the law.

The New Testament and The Law

The Old Testament scripture and its laws are discussed in some books of the New Testament. Jesus makes some comments, as well as several New Testament authors, like Mark and Paul.

Jesus

What did Jesus think about the Old Testament laws? His most relevant statements come from Matthew 5, during Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount. First, Jesus directly addresses his relationship with the law:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place. So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

— Matthew 5:17-20 (NET)

Jesus’s message is confusing, and has sparked varying interpretations. First, Jesus implies that we should follow the law: entering the kingdom of heaven is a desirable thing, and in order to be “great in the kingdom of heaven”, we must “obey [these commands] and teach others to do so”. However, he expresses the impossibly high bar: to enter the kingdom of heaven at all, you must do a better job than the legalistic, extremely religious Pharisees. Nobody can do that! So, perhaps Jesus is describing the impossibility of “earning” your way into the kingdom of heaven by works alone, and thus discouraging his listeners from following the law? It’s unclear what we should takeaway from Jesus’s words, other than that the Law was important (and perhaps may still be), and that Jesus “fulfills” it (whatever that means). Quite a puzzling passage.

You Have Heard It Said, But I Say To You…

Immediately following this passage in Matthew, we have several of Jesus’s strictest commandments:

• “You have heard that it was said to an older generation, ‘Do not murder,’ and ‘whoever murders will be subjected to judgment.’ But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subjected to judgment. And whoever insults a brother will be brought before the council, and whoever says ‘Fool’ will be sent to fiery hell.

• “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away! It is better to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into hell.

• “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer. But whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well. And if someone wants to sue you and to take your tunic, give him your coat also. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to the one who asks you, and do not reject the one who wants to borrow from you.

• “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

Most of Jesus’s quotations are from the Old Testament, except for “hate your enemy”. Thus, Jesus seems to be referring to the collection of Jewish laws and traditions, and implies that they’re not fully aligned with God’s ideals. In some cases, Jesus strengthens and tightens an Old Testament law, like equating anger with murder. In other cases, Jesus overturns the law, such as “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” to “do not resist the evildoer” and “turn the other cheek”. It appears that the Old Testament law only somewhat resembles desirable behavior in the eyes of God.

Jesus’s View on the Law

Below are all the instances I could find where Jesus affirms an Old Testament law:

1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. (Matthew 22)
2. Love your neighbor as yourself. (Matthew 22)
3. Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother. (Mark 10:19)

Besides these and a few other exceptions,¹ Jesus does not explicitly tell anyone to follow any Old Testament Laws. He also offers no broad, sweeping judgement of the Laws as a whole (besides his cryptic message in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew).²

But, what about Jesus’s behavior? Christians are often taught to emulate Christ, so even if he didn’t command us to follow the Old Testament Law, perhaps he kept it himself? Below is all the instances I could find, but there’s probably some I missed:

• Jesus is circumcised (Luke 2:21)
• Jesus went into the synagogue on Sabbath and read scripture (Luke 4:16), but we don’t know if he “kept the Sabbath” in a restful sense. Jesus tells a story in Mark 2:23-28 that implies approval of David’s breaking of the Sabbath rules and Jesus himself bends the rules.
• Jesus celebrates Passover (John 2), including eating the Passover meal (Mark 14:12-16)

Jesus seems to have generic respect for the Old Testament, often quoting it, but he offers little support or example for following the Old Testament laws.

Jesus and Mark: All Foods are Clean

In Mark 7, Jesus’s disciplines eat with unwashed hands. The Pharisees consider this a violation of tradition, and accuse Jesus. In response, Jesus says:

You neatly reject the commandment of God in order to set up your tradition… you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like this.”

Then he called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand. There is nothing outside of a person that can defile him by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles him.”

…his disciples asked him about the parable. He said to them, “Are you so foolish? Don’t you understand that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer.” (This means all foods are clean.)

— Mark 7:9,13,17-19 (NET)

Jesus clearly accuses the Pharisees of “nullify[ing] the word of God by your tradition”. He goes on to teach that “there is nothing outside of a person that can defile him”. This is a clear reversal of the Old Testament laws that prohibit certain foods as unclean (e.g. Leviticus 11). In case Jesus’s words aren’t clear enough, the author Mark writes his unambiguous interpretation: “This means all foods are clean.” Both Mark and Jesus seem to be in agreement that some Old Testament laws are no longer valid, and perhaps were never valid!

Paul’s View on the Law

Paul primarily teaches from an anti-law position. Here are some of the key points from his most relevant letter, Galatians:

1. The original purpose of the law was like a mirror that shows the sin of everyone. Thus, it “imprisons” us until Christ comes.
2. The Law cannot provide righteousness; only faith in Christ can do that.
3. If you follow the law because you think it makes you righteous, you’re under a “the curse of the law” and “a slave” to the law.
4. The law is no longer binding: “if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.” (Galatians 5:18)

In Philippians 3, he even says that his pre-Christian-conversion efforts to follow the Old Testament Law are “liabilities” and even “dung”.

If someone thinks he has good reasons to put confidence in human credentials, I have more: I was circumcised on the eighth day, from the people of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews. I lived according to the law as a Pharisee. In my zeal for God I persecuted the church. According to the righteousness stipulated in the law I was blameless. But these assets I have come to regard as liabilities because of Christ. More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things – indeed, I regard them as dung!

Finally, in Romans, Paul discusses the law:

For Christ is the end of the law, with the result that there is righteousness for everyone who believes.

— Romans 10:4 (NET)

In Romans 14, Paul explains that some Christians are “weak in the faith” and may have differing opinions over certain things, such as clean/unclean foods. Paul is thoroughly convinced that “there is nothing unclean in itself”, but if someone considers something unclean, you should respect their boundaries without judging them.

Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions. One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not despise the one who does not, and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him.

…Therefore we must not pass judgment on one another, but rather determine never to place an obstacle or a trap before a brother or sister. I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean in itself; still, it is unclean to the one who considers it unclean. For if your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy by your food someone for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let what you consider good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God does not consist of food and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.

— Romans 14:1-3,13-15 (NET)

Paul does occasionally regard the law, or specific laws, with respect; but in none of these cases do we see broad, sweeping statements that even suggest Paul intends the law to be binding.

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! Certainly, I would not have known sin except through the law… apart from the law, sin is dead… So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good.

— Romans 7:7,8,12 (NET)

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment accompanied by a promise, namely, “that it will go well with you and that you will live a long time on the earth.”

— Ephesians 6:1-3 (NET)

Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet,” (and if there is any other commandment) are summed up in this, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

— Romans 13:8-10 (NET)

Hebrews

The author of Hebrews is unknown, but the letter boasts anti-law rhetoric. Here are a couple clear examples:

So if perfection had in fact been possible through the Levitical priesthood – for on that basis the people received the law – what further need would there have been for another priest to arise, said to be in the order of Melchizedek and not in Aaron’s order? For when the priesthood changes, a change in the law must come as well… On the one hand a former command is set aside because it is weak and useless, for the law made nothing perfect. On the other hand a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God… Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

— Hebrews 7:11-12,18-19,22 (NET)

But now Jesus has obtained a superior ministry, since the covenant that he mediates is also better and is enacted on better promises.
For if that first covenant had been faultless, no one would have looked for a second one. But showing its fault, God says to them,
“Look, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
“It will not be like the covenant that I made with their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant and I had no regard for them, says the Lord.
“For this is the covenant that I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and I will inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God and they will be my people.
“And there will be no need at all for each one to teach his countryman or each one to teach his brother saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ since they will all know me, from the least to the greatest.
“For I will be merciful toward their evil deeds, and their sins I will remember no longer.”
When he speaks of a new covenant, he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging is about to disappear.

— Hebrews 8:6-13 (NET)

For the author of Hebrews, the law is faulty. It should be “set aside because it is weak and useless”, and Jesus has made it “obsolete”. Hebrews 10:1 explains that the law was a “shadow of good things to come but not the reality itself”. Instead, Hebrews points towards Jesus, who instituted a new, better covenant.

The Early Church’s View (The Jerusalem Council)

In Acts 15, we witness the early church struggle to determine which Old Testament laws are still binding. As part of the church’s growth, many Gentiles (non-Jews) were converting to Christianity. Some Christians claimed these new Gentile Christians needed to be circumcised and “observe the law of Moses”, which sparked controversy and debate.

Now some men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” When Paul and Barnabas had a major argument and debate with them, the church appointed Paul and Barnabas and some others from among them to go up to meet with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem about this point of disagreement… When they arrived in Jerusalem… some from the religious party of the Pharisees… stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise the Gentiles and to order them to observe the law of Moses.”

— Acts 15:1-5

At some point, Peter gives his opinion, describing the law as a “yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear”:

Both the apostles and the elders met together to deliberate about this matter… Peter stood up and said to them, “…God… has testified to [the Gentiles] by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between them and us, cleansing their hearts by faith. So now why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they are.”

— Acts 15:6-11

After more discussion, James chimes in, offering some rules he thinks the Gentiles should follow:

…I conclude that we should not cause extra difficulty for those among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things defiled by idols and from sexual immorality and from what has been strangled and from blood. For Moses has had those who proclaim him in every town from ancient times, because he is read aloud in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

— Acts 15:19-21

The rest of the church agrees with James, and they send a letter with their decision:

Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church… sent this letter with them:

…it seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to us not to place any greater burden on you than these necessary rules: that you abstain from meat that has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what has been strangled and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from doing these things, you will do well. Farewell.

— Acts 15:22,28-29

So, the church’s final decision was to treat these four Old Testament commandments as binding for Gentile Christians:

1. Abstain from meat that has been sacrificed to idols
2. Abstain from blood (i.e. don’t eat meat with blood in it)
3. Abstain from what has been strangled (i.e. don’t eat animals that were strangled)
4. Abstain from sexual immorality

In choosing these rules, the early church is essentially maintaining a doctrine of unclean food; this contradicts Paul, Jesus, and Mark, who all agreed that all foods are clean. We are told that the early church thought these rules “seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to us”, implying that prayer and personal conviction was involved; there is no further explanation as to why these specific laws were chosen to be binding. As an interesting note, these rules are not typically followed by modern Christians (e.g. blood sausage and black pudding contain animal blood).

The early church clearly had an opportunity to enforce the Old Testament laws on new Gentile Christians, but it “seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to us” to enforce only a handful of laws (mostly food laws) to enforce.

The New Testament’s View on the Law

Speaking of the Old Testament law, Jesus said “I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them.” It’s unclear what these words meant, but Jesus clearly alters Old Testament laws in inconsistent ways: sometimes Jesus encourages a law as-is; sometimes he strengthens/tightens the requirements; sometimes he completely overturns a law, even teaching its opposite (e.g. food laws). Mark, a gospel author, agrees that Jesus overturns the food laws. Paul, in multiple books, expresses a belief that “Christ is the end of the law” and “if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.” The early church only enforced a few select laws on new Christians (for reasons unknown).

In my opinion, this evidence from the New Testament does not support the idea of continuing to follow the Old Testament laws.

What Should the Modern Church Do?

Of the hundreds of Old Testament laws, only a handful are explicitly mentioned in the New Testament by Jesus or other authors. Thus, the modern Christian is left to wonder: what do we do about the unmentioned laws?

By far, the most popular perspective on the Old Testament law is a tripartite division: in this framework, each individual Old Testament law is either ceremonial/civil, or judicial, or moral; only the moral laws should be considered binding. The 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith gives a clearer explanation:

God was pleased to give… ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament.

To them also, as a body politic, He gave… judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require…

The moral law doth forever bind all… Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation.

— The Westminster Confession, Chapter 19

Augustine’s “Moral” and “Symbolic” Laws

This division of of the Old Testament between “permanent” and “temporary” laws goes back to at least Augustine. In ~400 CE, Augustine wrote a long work called Contra Faustum, written as a dialogue between himself and a Manichaean named Faustus. In Book VI, Faustus criticizes Augustine, saying neither of them follow the laws of the Old Testament and thus both “reject” it, yet Augustine deceptively pretends to love the Old Testament. Augustine responds to Faustus’s criticism by explaining the meaning and purpose of the Old Testament Laws and distinguishing between “moral” and “symbolical” laws:

[Faustus] displays ignorance of the difference between moral and symbolical precepts. For example, “Thou shalt not covet” is a moral precept; “Thou shalt circumcise every male on the eighth day” is a symbolical precept… In this they contradict [Paul] who says, “All these things happened to them for an example, and they were written for our learning, on whom the end of the world is come.” [Paul] explains why these writings are to be received, and why it is no longer necessary to continue the symbolical observances. For when [Paul] says, “They were written for our learning,” he clearly shows that we should be very diligent in reading and in discovering the meaning of the Old Testament Scriptures, and that we should have great veneration for them, since it was for us that they were written. Again, when [Paul] says, “They are our examples,” and “these things happened to them for an example,” he shows that, now that the things themselves are clearly revealed, the observance of the actions by which these things were prefigured is no longer binding… when [Paul] says, “Let no one judge you” in these things, he shows that we are no longer bound to observe them.

— Augustine, Contra Faustum, Book VI

In various parts of this text, Augustine asserts certain laws as “symbolic”³ or “moral”. Sometimes, Augustine explains why a given law is symbolic, but not always. Some of these explanations are, in my opinion, a massive stretch with little or no biblical basis (see below). He doesn’t offer a singular method for determining which is which, but if we read between the lines, Augustine seems to ask the question “is the law in question a shadow of Jesus?”

To patch linen garments with purple, or to wear a garment of woollen and linen together, is not a sin now. But to live intemperately, and to wish to combine opposite modes of life,—as when a woman devoted to religion wears the ornaments of married women, or when one who has not abstained from marriage dresses like a virgin,—is always sin. So it is sin whenever inconsistent things are combined in any man’s life. This, which is now a moral truth, was then symbolized in dress. What was then a type is now revealed truth. So the same Scripture which then required symbolical actions, now testifies to the things signified… it is more for our sakes, to whom the revelation belongs, than for theirs who had only the figure.

— Augustine, Contra Faustum, Book VI

Augustine’s language is reminiscent of Hebrews 10:1: “For the law possesses a shadow of the good things to come but not the reality itself”. If I were to paraphrase Augustine’s words, I would say something like this: there are permanently binding “moral truths” which are only sometimes described in Scripture. The Old Testament commandments were largely just “symbols” of these moral truths, and were only binding for their time; now that Jesus has come, only the moral truths are binding. If an Old Testament Law pointed to Christ in some way, it doesn’t need to be followed anymore. But, the Old Testament is still useful and valuable as a witness.

Issues with the Tripartite Division

As we already saw in Augustine’s work, there are issues with the tripartite division; namely, there is no biblical basis or criteria for dividing the Old Testament laws into these categories (beyond some specific examples). The only instance we’re given of the early Church picking and choosing which laws to enforce (Acts 15) provides no criteria and isn’t even followed in modern times.

In my opinion, this is a serious problem with this methodology. Take the 10 commandments, for example, which include maintaining the Sabbath, “do not murder”, “do not steal”, and “do not covet”. Immediately following this passage (Exodus 20), God gives more laws: “You must make for me an altar made of earth, and you will sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings”. According to the tripartite division, the prohibition of murder and stealing are moral laws, but the Sabbath and altar sacrifice are not. However, there is no clear indication in the Old Testament itself that this is the case. Thankfully, we can use the New Testament to determine that we still shouldn’t murder (Jesus in Matthew 5), we no longer have to keep the Sabbath (Colossians 2), and we no longer have to sacrifice sacrifice (Hebrews). What about the “do not covet” law?

My Position

This is a fundamentally tricky issue. The Bible does not provide a comprehensive framework for dealing with the various laws and commandments in the Old Testament. Any attempt to categorize the laws into binding and nonbinding, such as the tripartite division of civil/ceremonial/moral, are fundamentally flawed and have very little biblical basis; typically, this division is performed by conservative Christians to wretch authority from the Old Testament laws and say that certain things are sinful. In my opinion, the Old Testament laws don’t deserve that level of authority.

Using evidence from Jesus and other New Testament authors, I feel comfortable concluding that following Old Testament laws is not compulsory by default. There are cases wherein Jesus reaffirms specific laws, and we should follow those specific affirmations. In other cases, I would encourage prayer and conviction.

Like Augustine and the author of Hebrews, I’d agree that the laws were “a shadow of good things to come but not the reality itself”. Paul explains the purpose of the laws in the first place: “through the law comes the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20) and that “the scripture imprisoned everything and everyone under sin so that the promise could be given – because of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ – to those who believe.” (Galatians 3:22). The Pauline view is that the law existed solely to prove our sinfulness. Perhaps this is the case.

Now when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they assembled together. And one of them, an expert in religious law, asked him a question to test him: “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” Jesus said to him, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”

— Matthew 22:34-40

At the end of the day, Jesus provides the guiding principle for the commandments: loving God first, and loving your neighbor second. If we fail to do these things, we are not abiding in Jesus’s words.